2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Jinwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office (No. 2016 type No. 3330) regarding the forgery of each private document, and the uttering of each private document. However, the prosecutor of the above public prosecutor’s office issued a non-prosecution disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff was not subject to prosecution due to the completion of the statute of limitations on April 28, 2016 and the completion of part of the statute of limitations.

B. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for inspection and copying of the information listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “information”). On the same day, the Defendant only permitted inspection and copying of the minutes of the village association of April 19, 2003, minutes of December 10, 201, minutes of March 25, 201, and minutes of the village association of February 22, 2016, ② The list of the participants of the village association of February 22, 2016, letter of delegation 20, April 19, 2016, the D village association resolution of February 22, 2016, and the minutes of the D Village association of February 22, 2016, which were likely to be subject to disclosure or disclosure of confidential information of the investigation records of this case (hereinafter “information of this case”) or for the following reasons: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 221300, Feb. 22, 2016>

D. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition to the Busan High Public Prosecutor’s Office Administrative Appeals Commissions, but was dismissed on December 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Determination as to whether the disclosure of information can be made on the grounds of the Prosecution’s Office Regulations

1) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff, who is the complainant, can only request the perusal and copying of the documents in which his statement is written in accordance with Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor's Preservation, and that the non-disclosure information of this case falls under Article 22 (1) 2 and 4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor's Preservation, and thus, it can be restricted to

2) Although the Rules for the Preservation of Prosecutors' Office were enacted by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Prosecutor's Office Act, Article 22 of the said Rules merely provides for the restriction on reading and copying of the records of non-prosecutions, it cannot be deemed that the restriction on reading and copying under Article 22 of the said Rules constitutes "where there are special provisions in other Acts concerning the disclosure of information under Article 4 (1) of the Information Disclosure Act" or "where there are provisions concerning the disclosure of information under Article 9 (1) 1 of the said Rules" delegated by other Acts or subordinate statutes (limited to the National Assembly Rules, the Supreme Court Rules, the Constitutional Court Rules, the Constitutional Court Rules, the Presidential Decree, and the Municipal Ordinance, etc.). (See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du3049, May 25, 2006; 201Du16735, Jun. 28, 2012).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion, which is premised on the fact that information subject to non-disclosure can be defined by the Prosecution Preservation Affairs Rules, is without merit.

B. Determination as to the existence of grounds for non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act

1) The Defendant asserts that among the instant non-disclosure information, the investigation report falls under subparagraph 4 of Article 9(1) proviso of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the list of the participants in the village conference on February 22, 2016, the letter of delegation 20 copies, the resolution of the general meeting resolution of the D Village Council on April 19, 2003, and the minutes of the D Village Association on February 22, 2016 fall under subparagraph 6 of the same proviso.

2) 정보공개법 제9조 제1항 제4호는 진행 중인 재판에 관련된 정보와 범죄의 예방, 수사, 공소의 제기 및 유지, 형의 집행, 교정(鏞正), 보안처분에 관한 사항으로서 공개될 경우 그 직무수행을 현저히 곤란하게 하거나 형사피고인의 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 침해한다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 정보를 비공개대상 정보로 규정하고 있다.

In addition, Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act recognizes that the disclosure of personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc., is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual.

On the other hand, the proviso (c) of the same subparagraph provides information that is subject to non-disclosure, while disclosing information prepared or acquired by a public institution is excluded from information subject to non-disclosure, which is deemed necessary for the public interest or the protection of rights of individuals. Here, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the protection of rights of individuals” should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of individuals protected by non-disclosure such as privacy and the interests of individuals such as the protection of rights of individuals protected by disclosure (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361, Jun. 18, 201

3) According to the result of the court’s perusal and examination of the records of this case by non-disclosure, it is recognized that personal information, such as part of the third party’s resident registration number, address, contact information, etc., is included in the column other than the name of the delegating person, among the letter of delegation 20 copies of the non-disclosure information of this case. The above information (hereinafter referred to as “information” in attached Table 3) is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of personal life at the time of disclosure. Thus, it is reasonable to disclose the information in accordance with

However, the remainder of the non-disclosure information of this case, other than the information listed in the separate sheet 3, can be separated from the information listed in the separate sheet 3, and it is difficult to regard it as the information that could seriously impede the performance of duties concerning investigation, etc. or infringe on the privacy or freedom of privacy of the persons concerned. Thus, it does not constitute the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case, which rejected the perusal and copy of the information listed in the attached Form 3, is legitimate, and the part which rejected the perusal and copy of the remaining information shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-young

Judge Park Jong-sung